It just might end up being a pipeline, hopefully.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Keystone XL Pipeline Does Little Environmental Harm, US Finds

Dana Hughes
Mar 1, 2013 6:19pm

The Obama administration today moved one step closer to approval of the Keystone XL pipeline, concluding in a draft environmental impact statement that the project would not accelerate global greenhouse gas emissions or significantly harm the natural habitats along its route.

The report, done by the State Department, suggests that the proposed 875-mile pipeline, which would carry 830,000 barrels of crude oil per day from the tar sands of Alberta, Canada, to Steele City, Nebraska, has cleared a significant hurdle on its way to President Obama’s desk for final consideration.

“The approval or denial of any one crude oil transport project, including this proposed project, really remains unlikely to significantly impact the rate of development of the oil sands or the continued demand for heavy crude oil in the U.S.,” said Kerri-Ann Jones, the Assistant Secretary of State for Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs.

The State Department, which conducted the study because the pipeline would cross an international boundary, also suggested in a voluminous report that impacts on air, water and landscape would be minimal.

The agency found it “very unlikely” that the pipeline would affect water quality in any of the four aquifers through which it crossed. It also concluded that along one part of the proposed route, in the case of a large-scale oil spill, “these impacts would typically be limited to within several hundred feet of the release source, and would not affect groundwater.”

Government analysts found that Keystone XL would each year produce the equivalent carbon dioxide emissions of 620,000 passenger cars operating for a year. But they concluded that whether or not the pipeline is approved, those emissions would still likely occur because of fuels produced and obtained from other sources.

The release of the draft report reignited debate over climate change and President Obama’s pledge to do something about it.

Environmental activists have been lobbying Obama hard to block the plan — some recently chaining themselves to the White House fence in protest. Many environmental groups see rejection of the pipeline as a litmus test for whether Obama intends to fulfill his pledge from the second inaugural.

“It seems like Secretary Kerry and the State Department missed President Obama’s State of the Union and inaugural address,” said Erich Pica, president of Friends of the Earth. “The draft SEIS reads like an on-ramp to justify the Keystone XL pipeline project. We cannot solve the climate crisis when the State Department fails to understand the basic climate, environmental and economic impacts of the Keystone XL pipeline.”

Pica and other environmental advocates have called the pipeline a “carbon bomb,” increasing the use of tar sands oil, which is one of the dirtiest to produce and transport.

The oil industry, some members of Congress, and the nation’s major labor unions, which stand to gain construction jobs with the pipeline’s approval, all welcomed the news.

“No matter how many times KXL is reviewed, the result is the same: no significant environmental impact,” said Marty Durbin of the American Petroleum Institute, the oil industry lobby.

“The latest impact statement from the State Department puts this important, job-creating project one step closer to reality,” he said. “The last approval needed is by President Obama, and we urge him to do so as soon as possible.”

Canada, which has long lobbied the U.S. for approval of the deal, also hailed the State Department’s report as a step forward.

“The Keystone XL pipeline will create tens of thousands of jobs on both sides of the border,” said Canadian natural resources minister Joe Oliver.

In 2011, the Obama administration came close to approving an earlier version of the Keystone XL pipeline, which would have stretched from Alberta to the Gulf of Mexico. The deal was tabled after a dispute over the portion of the route through Nebraska, though officials later green-lighted construction of the southern portion of the pipeline.

Nebraska, Montana and South Dakota have now all signed-off on the pipeline plan and their governors and congressional delegations have been calling on Obama to follow suit.

One potential wild card: new Secretary of State John Kerry, a longtime advocate of action to combat climate change. He will play an influential role in finalizing the department’s review and recommendation before presenting it to Obama, who has said he’ll make the final call.

I support keystone for its jobs though they are few and not lengthy.
It is important to remember the things the company has made clear. Canadian oil shipped right across the border to refineries is for US consumption.
The Pipeline is meant to ship oil to coastal refineries so it can be shipped overseas to higher priced markets.
The Canadians have to tell the truth in their filings.
The Right media does not, along with MSNBC commentators on the left.

As I've indicated many times before, if the Keystone XL pipeline is approved, it's my opinion that approval should be conditioned on a requirement that the Canadian crude oil, and all the various products that are produced from it, are strictly for use in the US. In other words, none of the crude, or any of its refined products, can be legally exported to offshore markets. If there would any exception, it should be limited to sales to Canadian sources for their domestic use.

With all the clamor coming from oil interests about promoting US energy independence as a way to gain support and acceptance for the project, I believe that they should be held to their word. If the oil industry can't profit based on US consumption, there is absolutely no reason to approve and proceed with the project.

I doubt if it is even legal to tell a US or Canadian company that they cannot export a product out of the country. And, I do not think we should tell our allies in Europe we are going to be energy independent and not participate in the global energy market.

What is the difference in importing Canadian oil to be refined in Texas and imported to Europe than Mexican oil tankers bringing in crude oil to be refined and exported back to Mexico as they have done for years?

Even if you could succeed in stopping the sale of the Keystone product offshore, the refineries would just export Texas produced oil instead!

Oil is a global commodity. It is a joke that the proponents of the Keystone Pipeline promote the idea that this is a source for North American use, when we all know that the energy will be sold to the highest bidder. As I have indicated before, I am not against the pipeline IF they have satisfied all of the environmental regulations.

The Canadians also mentioned that they have no oil available to send down the pipe but may in 5 to 10 years. They also do not have enough to supply those refineries in the border states for use in the USA.
Their production fields are expensive so they only crank up when prices are very high on the world market.

All the criticism of Keystone, such as who will buy it, where it will end up, and when it will start to flow, is nothing but jumping over dollars to just save nickels.
If it gets approved, it will be an instant boon in many different ways, one of which being a psychological victory, the U.S. is finally doing something about expanding energy sources, specifically the one in most demand, oil.
The markets will love it._________________I don't drink the 'cool' aid, I drink tequila, it's more honest.

CB you are correct. Oil can be transported like water, and the free trade agreements won't allow this behavior. However, pipeline and refinery jobs will have a multiplier effect, and this is good for America. We will consume some or all of the oil if we have a vibrant economy, and need it.

I am glad that so much has been done to expand our energy sources in recent years that the US may be energy independent in our lifetimes.
Oil production is up in the US and natural gas is booming.
Past gov.looked for energy with war. Now we are seeking it at home.
Maui has a goal of reducing gas imports to fifty percent of previous levels through solar and wind. New homes must have solar integrated in the design.

Repeating the facts supplied by the Canadians is not meant to be critical, it was meant to fight against river of lies being told by oil company lobbyists. As I said, I support the pipeline on its own merits.

Before the election, the minions of the right-wind oiligarchs (eg mrgybe) were ranting that there were already pipelines over the aquifer and Obama should quickly approve the alignment favored by pig oil. I predicted that it would eventually be approved, but noted that pipeline alignments of even a few miles are often difficult.

Now I have not read either the initial draft EIR, or the current revision. Nor, I venture, has NW. The press reports I have read have indicated that there have been some alignment changes. See this from the New York Times:

Quote:

In January 2012 President Obama rejected the original route proposed by the pipeline operator, TransCanada, because of potential adverse impacts on sensitive grasslands and aquifers in Nebraska. The new environmental statement looks at a revised route submitted by TransCanada last spring.

I agree with the comments made about the source of the oil, shale deposits. They will be extracted if the market makes them attractive, whether they are shipped across the United States by pipeline or not. The enviros are treating this project as a symbol, and have gotten themselves into a rather extremist corner. However, I don't think that the economics are a lock--Obama's approach of all of the above has resulted in more natural gas and domestic oil, both at a lower cost per BTU I do believe. So I don't think implementation of the project is a lock--and if not, pig oil executives will look for ways to blame enviros and Obama rather than markets.

Even thought I worked in the shipping industry, I know well that pipelines are a safer transport mechanism than ships, and lower in carbon signature than trucks. So it seems to me that the process worked like it should--and didn't when pig oil operatives served as President and Vice President. The pipeline siting issues were taken seriously, and the rules of law, which require a diligent search for the least damaging alternative, were actually implemented. As expected, the pawns of the industry screamed and ranted, and the Obama haters first blamed him, and now will claim that he rolled over. When you don't understand, or perhaps don't respect the law, you can always hate on Obama. Conveniently forgetting that an earlier Congress established these laws and an earlier President signed them. Remembering only that Cheney ignored them.

Repeating the facts supplied by the Canadians is not meant to be critical, it was meant to fight against river of lies being told by oil company lobbyists.

the berk wrote:

Now I have not read either the initial draft EIR, or the current revision...........I don't think that the economics are a lock..........pig oil executives..........pig oil operatives........Obama haters.

So much anger..........so little knowledge.

The recipe for perpetual ignorance is: Be satisfied with your opinions and content with your knowledge -
Elbert Hubbard

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot vote in polls in this forumYou cannot attach files in this forumYou cannot download files in this forum